DEA admits marijuana legalization 'scares us'

A top official at the US Drug Enforcement Administration has said that legalizing marijuana, a drug that a majority of Americans are now in favor of decriminalizing, is “reckless and irresponsible.”

James L. Capra, the chief of operations at the DEA, was
responding to a question from a senator Wednesday when he
admitted authorities are nervous about the prospect of
legalization measures, which are becoming more popular throughout
the US after decriminalization initiatives passed in Colorado and
Washington.

“I have to say this…going down the path to legalization in
this country is reckless and irresponsible,” he said.
“I’m talking about the long term impact of legalization in
the United States. It scares us.”

Cannabis remains illegal under federal law, which trumps
conflicting state law. Yet US President Obama has said his
administration will not enforce federal marijuana restrictions in
states where it has been decriminalized.

Were that not the case, the DEA would be responsible for cracking
down on pot shops. The agency, in fact, has sustained heavy
criticism because it continues to harass grow operations in
California, Montana, and elsewhere where the drug is now legal
for medicinal purposes.

Sales in Colorado began on January 1 and will begin in Washington
within the coming months.

“There are more dispensaries in Denver than there are
Starbucks,” Capra said, as quoted by the Washington Post.
“The idea somehow people in our country have that this is
somehow good for us as a nation is wrong. It’s a bad thing.”

An October Gallup poll found that more Americans than ever
admitted they are in favor of legalizing marijuana. The number,
which stands at 58 percent, has slowly increased in the decades
since Gallup first asked the question in 1969, when a mere 12
percent were in favor of legalization.

Along with Colorado and Washington, 21 states have laws
protecting medical marijuana for citizens with serious illnesses.
Yet even more are poised to join the fray, with lawmakers in
California, New York, and elsewhere suggesting in recent weeks
that pot will become more accessible in their state in some form
within the next 12 months. A Washington Post poll compiled this
week found that Washington DC residents favor decriminalization
by a 2:1 ratio.

Yet Capra made it clear on Wednesday that he remains unconvinced.

“This is a bad experiment,” he said. “It’s going to
cost us in terms of social costs.”

He went on to describe an international drug conference in
Moscow, where officials from around the world wondered if the US
is easing its hardline stance in the War on Drugs.

“Almost everyone looked at us and said: Why are you doing
this, you’re pointing a finger at us as a sources state,” he
said. “I have no answer for them. I don’t have an answer for
them.”

Lawmakers and cannabis advocates alike expect legalization
measures to help boost struggling government budgets by
attracting tourism dollars and tax revenue. Yet dozens of current
and former law enforcement officials from around the nation have
spoken out against the changes as the conversation has gone on.
One reason, critics say, is because marijuana arrests and
seizures indirectly provide resources for the DEA.

Last year, for instance, marijuana lobbyists attacked Bensinger,
DuPont & Associates – a company founded by anti-pot crusaders
under US President Nixon that now specializes in corporate drug
testing – penned an open letter to a Senate committee criticizing
the Obama administration’s stance on marijuana.

The letter, as quoted by US News & World Report, advised that
cannabis is “a dangerous and addictive drug” which
“significantly impacts” society as a whole – and worker
productivity in particular.

Robert DuPont was the White House drug czar under Nixon and then
President Ford, and Peter Bensinger was a high-ranked DEA
official through the 1970s. Ethan Nadelmann, executive director
of the Drug Policy Alliance in New York, said that the issue is
both professional and personal for people like DuPont, Bensinger,
and others who currently serve in the DEA.

“They realize they are going to suffer the fate of the people
who ran the bureau of prohibition [of alcohol] in the ‘20s and
‘30s, and that must be a little demoralizing,” Nadelman
said. “So they are trying to justify their life’s work.”